Business model innovation in strategic alliances: a multi-layer perspective - KOBRA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Business model innovation in
strategic alliances: a multi-layer
perspective
Patrick Spieth1 , Sven M. Laudien2 and
Svenja Meissner3
1
Technology and Innovation Management, University of Kassel, Nora-Platiel-Str. 4, 34109, Kassel,
Germany. spieth@uni-kassel.de
2
mAHS – media Akademie Hochschule Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. laudien@media-hs.de
3
BMW AG, Munich, Germany. svenja.meissner@bmw.de
Business model innovation (BMI) has recently become a topic of interest for research as
well as corporate practice. However, we lack specific insights into actors, drivers, and dif-
ferent forms of BMI as the concept is by now mainly addressed in a very general way. In
this paper, we analyze how BMI takes place in strategic alliances with the focus of enhanc-
ing the recent knowledge about BMI by developing a concept that links firm-level BMI
with alliance-driven innovation of business models. Against the background of an in-depth
explorative qualitative study, we shed light on the basic nature business model innovation
alliances (BMIA) and their effects on both, alliance level and firm level. We develop a pro-
cess model of BMIA that is the first model providing a holistic picture of this particular type
of BMI. Our findings allow for deep insights into BMI processes in incumbent companies
and uncover in detail the importance of boundary spanning activities in this realm. By
providing these insights, we pave the ground for a new stream of BMI research that focuses
on the in-depth understanding of the role of collaboration and network effects in recent
BMI processes. In addition, we show practical benefits for partners in BMI alliances. These
insights may help to overcome the traditional fear of negative effects that is still very often
prevalent in companies when it comes to issues of partnering with firm external players in
strategic issues.
1. Introduction game significantly (Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart,
2010; Lee et al., 2012). Established companies need
E stablished companies acting in a high-technol-
ogy setting recently find themselves facing a
dynamic business environment characterized by fast
to be aware that competition is very often triggered
by new market players bridging traditional indus-
try boundaries (Zott and Amit, 2010). However,
technological advancement, high complexity, and these new market players may open up new oppor-
rising uncertainty (McGrath, 2010). Megatrends tunities for collaboration and for innovation as they
such as the blurring of industry boundaries and the are equipped with a completely different mindset.
need for collaboration caused by an ongoing special- Therefore, it is becoming increasingly difficult not
ization of companies have changed the competitive only to identify potential competitors, their strategy,
24 © 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits
use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or
adaptations are made.Business model innovation in strategic alliances
and their possible future acting, but also to predict rapidly during a very short period of time due to
the development of the business environment as a changing market conditions. Nevertheless, network
whole (Bettis and Hitt, 1995) and to distinguish be- innovation processes are complex which makes it
tween possible enemies and friends. difficult to research them and predict their outcome.
Against this background the question arises how As changing ecosystem conditions require acting
to ensure a sustainable market presence. As stud- without delay, especially companies that are expe-
ies on business models, innovation, and technology rienced in collaborating with network partners tend
management reveal, technological innovation mat- to rely on their extant network to overcome their
ters for market success but may not be enough to resource and knowledge constraints when striv-
ensure company survival in the long run (Doganova ing for BMI – a way of acting that is in line with
and Eyquem-Renault, 2009). Since technology by suggestions from innovation literature (e.g. Mariti
itself has no inherent value (Chesbrough, 2006, and Smiley, 1983; Hagedoorn, 1993; Gulati, 1999).
2010), companies need to wrap it in a unique pur- Yet, the linkage between collaborative innova-
pose-built business model (Johnson et al., 2008) in tion research and BM research is weak – although
order to realize its full economic value (Chesbrough Chesbrough and Schwartz (2007) and Chesbrough
and Rosenbloom, 2002; Zott et al., 2011). The need (2007) call for deeply linking both research streams.
for coevally analyzing these two different levels of While researchers agree on the important role collab-
change calls for employing a holistic perspective oration may play in terms of BMI and emphasize the
(Baden-Fuller and Mangematin, 2013). This is where boundary-spanning nature of BMs (Zott and Amit,
BMIA come into play as BMIA are strategic partner- 2010), we do by now not know much about how dif-
ships that allow for coevally transforming and inno- ferent partners contribute to BMI and what the result-
vating the business models of the partner companies. ing BMs look like (Baden-Fuller and Mangematin,
The business model (BM) as a tool of analysis 2013; Spieth et al., 2014, 2016).
allows for both addressing strategic issues and tak- Prior research on BMI has focused on (1) con-
ing the operational level into account (Chesbrough, ceptualizing and operationalizing the focal construct
2010; Laukkanen and Patala, 2014). This is under- (e.g. George and Bock, 2011; Zott et al., 2011; Spieth
lined by Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart (2010, et al., 2016), (2) exploring possible antecedents (e.g.
p. 195) who describe the BM as the ‘…reflection of Amit and Zott, 2001; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom,
a firm's realized strategy’ whereas the operational 2002; Doz and Kosonen, 2010), and (3) determining
role of the BM is highlighted by Spieth et al. (2014). consequences and effects on subsequent changes
Furthermore researchers agree that new BMs repre- (e.g. Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu, 2013; Sabatier
sent a valuable source of wealth as well as a great et al., 2010; Kim and Min, 2015), but neglected to
opportunity in today’s economy (Massa et al., 2017). explore BMI processes on alliance level as well as
Involving strategic partners in new value-creating interaction effects with the focal and partners’ BMs.
activity systems has several advantages: it helps com- Knowledge about BMI processes (e.g. Sosna et al.,
panies to keep innovation costs at bay, gain access to 2010; Baden-Fuller and Mangematin, 2013) on alli-
additional resources such as knowledge and technolo- ance level is scarce. Therefore, it is important to have
gies, and allows companies to spread the risk entailed a deeper look at changes on the BM level (Dmitriev
by all forms of innovative activities with hard-to- et al., 2014; Laudien and Daxböck, 2017) aiming
predict economic value (Mitsuhashi and Greve, 2009; at providing a holistic perspective of the design of
Zott and Amit, 2010). Given the mentioned turbulent BMs in the 21st century. It is especially necessary
environments, alliances have become a key factor in to uncover to what extent digitalization-based ways
many industries and have shifted from cost-driven of doing business allow for an increased number of
alliances to knowledge-intensive alliances, where possible business configurations that may appear
two or more partners are sharing knowledge (or other in terms of new collaboration opportunities and
resources) and are learning from each other (Douma new network designs leading to new, partner-based
et al., 2000; Draulans et al., 2003). value propositions (Bask et al., 2010). In line with
Business model innovation (BMI) and specifically extant BMI literature (e.g. Demil and Lecocq, 2010;
BMI that is carried out by making use of alliances Bucherer et al., 2012; Laudien and Daxböck, 2017),
has by now received little attention in business model this study extends our understanding on this matter
and innovation literature. This is unsatisfactory as by exploring how BMI processes occur within alli-
networks that cross borders between market players ances and which challenges arise related to different
are growing rapidly and very often determine the process stages. Moreover, possible interaction effects
nature of 21st century innovation processes. In other between the firm’s extant BM and the newly evolving,
words, the scope of company acting has declined alliance-based BM are by now widely unexplored.
© 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 25Patrick Spieth, Sven M. Laudien and Svenja Meissner
Consequently, we address these shortcomings BM articulates how a company approaches value
and seek to deepen our understanding of business creation, value delivery, and value capture in inter-
model innovation alliances in the current BMI and action with partners – a viewpoint that is widely
collaborative innovation literature by exploring how shared especially by papers aiming at understand-
BMI processes occur within alliances and which ing BMI (e.g. Chesbrough, 2007, 2010).
challenges arise related to different process stages. The BM element that is usually considered first
Additionally, we investigate how the internal BM and when creating a BM is value creation (Massa et al.,
the newly developed alliance-based BM influence 2017). Central in this realm is the articulation of
each other. As dimension and intensity of the eco- the value proposition matching the identified mar-
system change require a reorganization of the entire ket segment (Chesbrough, 2010). Following, it is
value creation process causing a strong tendency for important to outline the value delivery element
BM change, an effect on both cooperation partners which illustrates the mechanisms how to bring the
is plausible. Therefore, we also establish two differ- created value to the customer (Dahan et al., 2010).
ent perspectives – an internal, firm-focused BM per- Finally the value capture element deserves atten-
spective and coevally an external, alliance-based BM tion as this element gives an answer to the question
perspective – when trying to understand BM change how to earn revenues by monetizing the proposed,
in this context. Allying for the sake of jointly inno- created, and delivered value (Chesbrough and
vating a BM is likely to follow different rules com- Rosenbloom, 2002).
pared to traditional types of strategic alliances (see
e.g. Hamel, 1991; Gulati and Singh, 1998; Das and 2.2. Business model innovation
Teng, 2000).
We approach these research objectives against the A BM needs to fit ecosystem conditions to be suc-
background of a qualitative-empirical study embed- cessful which imposes the challenge to constantly
ded in automotive industry. Our unique sample, monitor the viability of the applied BM configura-
which includes matching data that cover information tion (Teece, 2010; Bucherer et al., 2012). In case of
on the internal, firm-focused BM as well as the exter- an identified misfit, the BM needs to be adjusted to
nal, alliance-based BM, allows for establishing a pro- the new ecosystem conditions (Morris et al., 2005;
cessual perspective on the evolvement of both types Demil and Lecocq, 2010; Doz and Kosonen, 2010).
of BMs. Therefore, our study coevally contributes This adjustment is called BMI.
to alliance literature and BMI literature as we link In line with BM literature, extant research on BMI
these two research streams and develop an empiri- provides a heterogeneous understanding of the phe-
cally grounded process model of BMI in alliances nomenon. In this study, we follow the BMI definition
that takes the interplay with the companies’ extant of Khanagha et al. (2014, p. 324): ‘Business model
BM into account. innovation activities can range from incremental
changes in individual components of business mod-
els, extension of the existing business model, intro-
duction of parallel business models, right through to
2. Conceptual background disruption of the business model, which may poten-
tially entail replacing the existing model with a fun-
2.1. Business model damentally different one’.
To date research has not reached a commonly While some scholars state that BMI has to be
agreed definition of the BM yet (Zott et al., 2011; new to the industry (Santos et al., 2009), we follow a
Wirtz et al., 2015; Massa et al., 2016). Hence, this second stream that argues that BMI can also be new
study follows the useful distinction by Zott and to the firm (Osterwalder et al., 2005; Johnson et al.,
Amit (2010, p. 216) who define a BM ‘…as a sys- 2008; Bock et al., 2012).
tem of interdependent activities that transcends The same fragmentation is true for research on
the focal firm and spans its boundaries’. However, BMI processes. While Demil and Lecocq (2010)
we do explicitly not rely on the more detailed BM define it as a continuous reaction to changes in the
conceptualization by Amit and Zott (2001) who environment, Dunford et al. (2010) describe it as an
name content, structure, and governance as key evolutionary process. Other authors consider it as an
elements of the BM, as we regard this perspective ongoing learning process (Chanal and Caron-Fasan,
as mainly company focused and therefore not help- 2010; McGrath, 2010; Sosna et al., 2010) or an ana-
ful for our research context. Instead, we prefer the lytical approach (McGrath, 2010; Smith et al., 2010;
BM elements of Teece (2010), who states that a Sosna et al., 2010).
26 R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 © 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons LtdBusiness model innovation in strategic alliances
2.3. Openness of business models vs. 2010). A broader perspective relates strategic fit to
business model innovation alliances similarities in technology, products, and markets,
separating it from organizational fit with organiza-
Chesbrough (2006, 2007) states that BMs are tional processes and logics (Nielsen and Gudergan,
closed by nature. However, he was the first who 2012). Greater fit of organizational processes and
distinguished between open and closed BMs. The dominant business logics implies that companies
term ‘open BM’ was originally used in the con- can more easily leverage resources to joint value-
text of collaborative innovation research but was creation opportunities (Lado et al., 1997). ‘The
used more broadly later on referring to all aspects key challenge of alliances in general is to coordi-
of the BM (Sandulli and Chesbrough, 2009). The nate the activities of two independent entities, as
phrase collaborative innovation characterizes two or more potentially opposing characteristics
innovation processes that require a high degree of regarding structure, culture and process velocity
openness against and collaboration with partners. need to be reconciled’ (Spieth and Meissner, 2018,
Collaborative innovation literature (e.g. Enkel p. 6). Hienerth et al. (2011) strongly recommends
et al., 2009) shows that by means of collaboration companies should follow collaborative innovation
companies are enabled to enhance their knowledge strategies to arrange in line with the organizational
and resource base and to overcome inflexibilities or aspects of their BM to external knowledge sourc-
even inertia. Saebi and Foss (2015) discovered that ing and its subsequent integration into the inter-
different companies benefit to a different extent nal knowledge base and finally its exploitation for
through the use of collaborative innovation and innovation (Spieth and Meissner, 2018). In our
state that this phenomenon could be explained by view, BMIA are established to jointly create an
the fact that their BMs are not attuned to collab- innovative, shared BM as well as to capture value
oration. Therefore, collaborative innovation calls from it. This is what happens on the alliance level.
for new, open BMs which facilitate the sharing However, the alliance BM can also have impli-
or licensing of technologies (Chesbrough, 2007, cations on the company level as it may affect the
2010). Chesbrough and Schwartz (2007) empha- internal BM of each partner as a consequence of
size the impacts of co-development on BMI. the learning process in a BMIA.
However, they only refer to additional BM options
resulting from co-development partnerships. While
they focus on new product development rather than 3. Methodology
on BMI, the co-development partnership does not
actively innovate the BM. Yet, present collabora- Main objective of this paper was to explore BMI
tive innovation research mainly looks at how the processes within BMIA and challenges related to
integration of diverse stakeholders, customers, distinct process stages. Additionally, we investigate
suppliers, and competitors improves technology how the internal BM and the newly developed alli-
development and thereby advances product innova- ance-based BM influence each other.
tion (West and Lakhani, 2008; Bogers et al., 2010; As BMIA are a newly emerging phenomenon,
West and Bogers, 2014) but rarely focuses on BMI we followed suggestions by Eisenhardt and others
aspects. Extant research stresses that BM needs to (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007;
be aligned to the innovation practices of the firm Yin, 2014) and decided for a qualitative way of
or the business unit (Magretta, 2002; Casadesus- proceeding, making use of an inductive case-study
Masanell and Ricart, 2010; Casadesus-Masanell et approach. A qualitative approach fits best with our
al., 2015; Santos et al., 2015). research aims as it allows for gathering rich, in-depth
Hence, we introduce the concept of Business insights and is especially helpful to understand com-
Model Innovation Alliances (BMIA) to add the plex, multi-layer phenomena, such as the analysis of
integration of alliance partners into the BMI pro- BMI processes on two different levels: the firm level
cess. BMIA depict strategic alliances as they are as well as the alliance level (Marshall and Rossman,
based on asset pooling or resource exchange agree- 2006; Graebner et al., 2012).
ments between companies (Stuart, 1998). The suit-
ability of an alliance is measured by the coherence
of the alliance partners’ internal strategy, structure,
3.1. Data sample and data collection
and processes (Nielsen and Gudergan, 2012). In a We base our analysis on a unique primary dataset.
narrow definition, the strategic fit between ally- Our sample is anchored in the German automotive
ing companies can be understood as the match industry and allows us to trace all BMI alliances of
between the allies’ strategic approaches (Nielsen, one German car manufacturer, covering data from
© 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 27Patrick Spieth, Sven M. Laudien and Svenja Meissner
both sides – the car manufacturer and the respective ensure the expert status of our informants to maintain
alliance partners. data quality.
We pursued a purposeful sampling strategy The interviews are based on four different question
(Patton, 2002; Denzin and Lincoln, 2005) to select sets exploring the role of processes/structure, gover-
a sample that fits our predefined criteria: (1) the alli- nance, culture, and learning in BMIAs. In the course
ance needs to be a BMIA, which means an alliance of the study we carefully revised the initial interview
built to jointly develop as well as execute a new BM. guideline, concentrating on emerging themes as rec-
(2) The alliance objective has to be new to all alli- ommended by Glaser and Strauss (2009). Analyzing
ance partners to ensure that BMI takes place. (3) the data did not directly follow the data collection
The alliance is set up by the focal company together in a linear way but was rather a recursive process as
with established companies that run at least one sep- data collection and data analysis overlapped with
arate BM in parallel to the developing alliance BM each other (Eisenhardt, 1989).
to check for interaction effects between the internal In a second step, we supplemented the interview
and alliance-based BM. (4) The alliance has to be data with internal and external archival data such as
already established. Those criteria guarantee similar annual reports, presentations, and media articles to
features, which raises the probability that differences allow for data triangulation with the aim of delimit-
and similarities are of general relevance and allow ing a possible retrospective bias.
for theorizing (Gerring, 2007).
BMIA are a newly evolving phenomenon that first
3.2. Data analysis
surfaced in the automotive industry. As a result, find-
ing alliances that match our criteria was challenging Our data analysis is based on a two-step coding pro-
as especially BMIA in infant stages tends to be kept cedure as described by Gioia et al. (2013) that we
a secret and is thus very difficult to detect. Therefore, applied to the synthesized data of both data sources,
we additionally employed respondent-driven sam- interview data, and archival data. Following a thor-
pling (Heckathorn, 1997; Salganik and Heckathorn, ough transcription process, we used an open-coding
2004), asking each interviewee if he or she was technique, sticking close to the words originally
aware of similar, planned, or already established used by the informants whenever possible (in vivo
alliances. Following this procedure, we were able to codes). Otherwise we summarized the statement in
identify five BMIA in which the automotive OEM a simple descriptive phrase (first-order codes) (van
(= Original Equipment Manufacturer) we looked at Maanen and Schein, 1979; Strauss and Corbin, 1998;
is currently involved. Each of these BMIA has a dif- Gioia et al., 2013). To begin with, we grouped the
ferent focus on the areas’ mobility, charging, energy, data in first-order concepts according to underlying
storage, and parking. Table 1 shows sample details. basic concepts. Then we looked for similarities and
Our sample consists of 18 initial face-to-face differences between the categories using axial cod-
interviews. We supplemented the interview data with ing in order to condense the first-order concepts into
additional data collected via phone calls so that in second-order themes. Only after this task had been
the end we approached each informant several times completed, we conducted an extensive literature
and ended up with more than 38 hours of interview analysis that allowed us to go back and forth between
recordings. It enables us to employ a portfolio per- literature and emergent theory and thereby to support
spective on the phenomenon under research. Our confidence in the findings as well as to re-sharp our
dataset consists of six interviews with representatives emergent theory in confrontation with conflicting lit-
of the alliance partners, two with the managing direc- erature (Eisenhardt, 1989). This process was again
tors of the created joint ventures and 10 interviews iterative in nature; constantly cycling between data,
with firm’s internal alliance managers from the focal emerging patterns, and relevant literature resulted
company, one with a focus on business administra- in a synthesis embedded in both the collected data
tion, and one for the technical aspects for each of the and theory developed in the literature. Last, we made
alliances. All interviews were conducted between use of selective coding to further condense related
September 2015 and March 2016. The initial inter- themes into overarching dimensions (Strauss and
views lasted about 1.5 hours. Corbin, 1998; Gioia et al., 2013).
Aiming at collecting process data, we used To further enhance the trustworthiness of our
semi-structured interviews to get a wide range of data, we took several steps including careful man-
both past- and present-oriented accounts from peo- agement of our data (contact records, interview tran-
ple who are experiencing the phenomenon of BMIAs scripts, documents). This includes that one member
in their day-to-day business. Furthermore, we only of the research team took an external role as devil’s
approached top-level key informants as we needed to advocate with the aim of enhancing objectivity as
28 R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 © 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons LtdTable 1. Sample description
# Code Interviewees Partnering firms BMIA Objective Benefit automotive OEM Benefit partner(s)
1 M1 Automotive OEM 1 Business Automotive OEM & Mobility Short-term mobility- Expands its BM to include ad- Complements its BM by integrat-
2 M2 Automotive OEM 1 Technology Car Rental on-demand ditional mobility services ing a free floating car sharing
solutions system
3 M3 Car Rental 1
4 M4 Joint Venture: Mobility 1
5 P1 Automotive OEM 2 Business Automotive OEM & Parking Easy access to park- Adding further mobility ser- Gaining a valuable distribution
6 P2 Automotive OEM 2 Technology Integrated Parking ing space vices to its portfolio channel
Solutions
7 P3 Integrated Parking Solutions 2
8 C1 Automotive OEM 3 Business Automotive OEM Charging Premium service to Access to complementary Benefits from an additional cus-
9 C2 Automotive OEM 3 Technology & Charging find, use and pay products and services to sup- tomer base
Infrastructure charging stations port electric vehicle field
10 C3 Charging Infrastructure 3
11 E1 Automotive OEM 4 Business Automotive OEM & Energy IT-based energy Both partners benefit from entering a new business area, enabled by
12 E2 Automotive OEM 4 Technology Heating Systems consulting their complementing know-how
13 E3 Heating Systems 4
14 E4 Joint Venture: Energy 4
© 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
15 S1 Automotive OEM 5 Business Automotive OEM & Storage Stationary energy Like it is for the alliance 'Energy' case, entering this new market alone
16 S2 Automotive OEM 5 Technology Energy Supplier storage would be very cost-, learning- and time-intensive for the
& System participating firms
17 S3 Energy Supplier 5
Integrator
18 S4 System Integrator 5
R&D Management 51, 1, 2021
Business model innovation in strategic alliances
29Patrick Spieth, Sven M. Laudien and Svenja Meissner
well as keeping the higher level perspective crucial of standardization opportunities makes every search
for informed theorizing (Eisenhardt, 1989; Nemeth process unique as each innovation idea requires
et al., 2001; Gioia et al., 2013). an idiosyncratic set of resources and capabilities.
Second, the requirements considerably delimit the
number of available partners, which enhances part-
4. Results ner search complexity. S3 describes this challenge
as follows: ‘naturally concerning new services it is
Against the background of the employed coding pro- a little different as regarding established business
cedure we were able to gather interesting insights models. We have to be happy to find a partner at all
into the run of BMI in alliances. Our data reveal that that matches the project requirements. There is no
two distinct aggregate dimensions can explain BMI detailed screening process anymore’. Once the right
in alliances: (1) BMI processes on alliance level and partner is found, the alliance has to be established. In
(2) Interaction of BMs on firm level. BMI processes this stage, top-level commitment from both partners
on alliance level can be explained by the four phases: is essential as this eases contract negotiations. At this
concept, foundation, development, and operation. point of the process, the quality of the alliance con-
Interaction effects on firm levels are considered by tract is of major importance, as it lays the founda-
the four phases: identification, consolidation, cre- tion for the future cooperation and will be consulted
ation, and adaption. The detailed results of the coding whenever difficulties occur. E4 underlines this by
process are displayed in Figure 1. In the next subsec- stating: ‘…in a good cooperation the contract stays
tions we elaborate in-depth on these two dimensions. in the cupboard and is slowly forgotten as we take
care of the operative business’. Based on the speci-
fications of the alliance contract, alliance structures
4.1. BMI processes on alliance level and processes are established. They depict the frame-
On alliance level, the first phase of the BMI process work for jointly developing and later operating the
is a phase we call the concept phase. It is character- BM. Within this structure, all partners jointly con-
ized by the search for approval of a newly evolving, duct a thorough analysis of the innovation idea itself,
promising idea. This idea can either arise in a more its technical feasibility as well as the underlying BM,
scientific setting (e.g. conferences), within a preced- thereby they verify their initial business case drafts
ing project, or in the company itself. Following the and compile a first project plan regarding time man-
emergence of a new idea, the company has to inves- agement and further steps of the development of both
tigate the idea’s commercial potential, alongside the BM and the resulting product or service. P2 high-
conducting a market and competitor analysis in the lights that ‘…this phase ends with a detailed project
respective market. Moreover, the company needs to plan: who does what when’. A main challenge of this
examine which distinct requirements this idea entails stage is the need for a constant alignment of the part-
and for which parts of these requirements the com- ner’s goals.
pany may need the support of a partner. Furthermore, The next phase named as development phase
the question of funding is essential: is it more viable involves the development and experimentation with
to invest alone or with a partner? When all of those the new alliance BM. Furthermore, the product or
aspects are clarified, they are summarized in a first service is developed according to the project plan.
draft of a business case. ‘The business case describes Constant monitoring and iteration loops allow the
the innovation/product requirements that determine companies to adapt the evolving BM whenever nec-
what we can do on our own and for which aspects we essary. According to C3 ‘…this phase is defined by
need external support’ (E2). Based upon this busi- the milestones of the project plan and ends with the
ness case the company seeks internal approval for so-called acceptance test’ of the associated products
the evolving idea as well as a formal permission to or services it constitutes. During this phase, the mea-
rethink established BM components and to develop surement of the alliance success in relation to the
a parallel BM with the help of an alliance partner. input of each partner represents a key challenge. ‘At
As interviewee E1 puts it: ‘then we start going to this point it is crucial to show that the alliance gen-
committees using a power point presentation with an erates more than a simple addition of its individual
attached price tag to get internal approval’. companies’ (M1).
In a second phase that we call foundation phase, This motive migrates into the next and last phase
the company searches for a partner that is able to which we call operating phase. This is all about
provide the identified resources and capabilities reaping the fruits of the precedent labor by tak-
that are necessary to realize the new BM idea. Two ing the BM to market and capturing value from it.
effects influence this partner foundation. First, a lack Therefore, an equilibrium between input and output
30 R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 © 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons LtdBusiness model innovation in strategic alliances Figure 1. Coding results. of all partners needs to be ensured. P1 stresses this the alliance emerges. ‘The alliance BM can either challenge by stating ‘we often struggle to balance be reintegrated in one of the mother companies, input and output of both partners as soon as intan- executed independently, or come to an end with the gible assets are involved. E.g. what is the financial defined completion of the alliance contract. In each value of data?’ Once the operation of the BM runs case, the right timing is crucial’ (S4). The least desir- smoothly, the question of a vision for the future of able option is an unplanned failure of the alliance © 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 31
Patrick Spieth, Sven M. Laudien and Svenja Meissner
leading to an immediate termination. Once there is a take place. This independence allows the company
vision for the future of the BMIA, the process starts to especially benefit from the innovated BM as it
anew with the emergence of an idea on how to further is not necessary to deal with inertia. Furthermore,
enhance the alliance BM. it enables the alliance to ‘promote its business
without being held back by corporate structures
and processes as speedboat next to the big tanker’
4.2. Interplay between the BM on alliance
(M2). Another key element of the creation phase
and company levels is BM experimentation ‘with its regularly iteration
Our data show a distinct linkage between the newly loops and adjustments of the BM’ (S2). Interviewee
developed BM on alliance level and the company’s C2 emphasizes the importance of BM experimenta-
extant BM. This linkage includes four corresponding tion by asking ‘How likely is it to hit the bull's eye
phases that we name identification, consolidation, first time when we decide to do something entirely
creation, and adaption. different?’
In the identification phase, independent compa- Only in the next phase, the adaption phase, which
nies look for new ways to enhance their BM regarding focusses on finally capturing value from the newly
all three BM elements: value creation, value delivery, developed BM, this innovative BM provides some
and value capture. Therefore, they engage actively in kind of role model for the extant BM. P3 highlights
meetings with a scientific basis and use their exis- the learning aspect as he states that it is essential to
tent network to get fresh inputs and establish new ‘integrate the knowledge that has been generated
contacts. C1 explains that this ‘may take place only within the alliance into our own, internal business
related to one firm or related to all future partners at model’. This leads to internal BMI. Nevertheless,
the same time’. Often environmental dynamics such another interviewee adds that companies ‘often
as technological innovation leaps, social develop- struggle to spread the lessons learned within the
ments, or regulatory requirements lead to new ques- company’ (M2).
tions that preoccupy several industries concurrently. However, the learning effect can even be
As interviewee M3 puts it ‘at the moment nearly all increased when the process starts anew. In this
companies deal with the same thoughts on how to case, every partner starts into the new cycle with an
improve their BM and approach each other with their internal BM adapted according to the knowledge
ideas’. created in all former BMI alliances. This adapted
Within the consolidation phase again ‘one com- internal BM allows each company to additionally
pany individually or both companies simultaneously learn from each former BMIA its partner has con-
make use of their network, complemented by other ducted so far. Resulting from this discovery the
sources, such as trade-shows, venture capital, invest- importance of strategic partner selection processes
ment bankers etc., in order to identify potential part- cannot be overestimated.
ners’ (E3). According to our data companies still
mainly focus on the value creation aspect of the BM. 4.3. Cross-alliance comparison and
Once a potential partner is found, both partners look
for an intersection in their BMs. This intersection
clarification of results
lays the foundation for a future alliance. S3 claims Although we see similarities between the analyzed
that the consolidation phase starts with ‘a rough stra- BMIA, we need to highlight that the alliances
tegic exchange how far contents would match. If two under research are somewhat different with regard
companies are active in the same field and both want to their detailed technical purpose as well as their
a piece of this cake, it is essential to make sure early development status. By now, not all of the alliances
in the process that there are complementing, syner- have reached the operation/adaption phase yet.
getic areas’. For example, Storage is still in the development/
The creation phase, which takes the remain- creation phase continuously improving their BM.
ing two BM elements – value delivery and value Moreover, only Mobility has already reached the
capture – into consideration, is characterized by the final status, where learnings from the shared BM
fact that innovation only takes place on the alliance have actually been (re-)integrated into the inter-
level and not within the company boundaries, as nal BM of each partner company and the process
companies do not want to jeopardize their extant is starting again. Car Rental, mainly known for
BM. The new BM is – for example under the roof stationary rental stations, added a free-floating
of a joint venture – executed in parallel to the extant system to its BM, whereas the automotive coun-
BM, ‘serving as some sort of test balloon’ (M4). terpart applied their learnings to their fleet man-
Therefore, an adjustment of the extant BM does not agement services. All other alliance partners we
32 R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 © 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons LtdBusiness model innovation in strategic alliances
talked to expressed the intent to translate their alli- 5. Discussion and conclusion
ance experiences into learnings for their own BM,
although some of them already predicted difficul- 5.1. Theoretical implications
ties in spreading the learning in their companies.
According to our interviewees, the creation of a With this paper we respond to recent calls for studies
joint venture even reinforces this issue. Therefore, that examine how BMI processes take place in estab-
the two cases that encompass a joint venture call for lished companies and thereby contribute to their the-
an extra emphasis on regular knowledge exchange oretical understanding (Arend, 2013; Baden-Fuller
with the mother companies. and Mangematin, 2013; Massa and Tucci, 2014;
Despite these differences regarding their cur- Demil et al., 2015). As we observed that incumbents
rent stage, all alliances showed in our analysis the are often relying on partners when searching for
same development steps and critical points which new BMI opportunities, we had a closer look on the
points to the relevance of the uncovered similar- specific characteristics of the BMI process (Baden-
ities. Nevertheless, there is no set duration of each Fuller and Mangematin, 2013), when conducted
phase and the process does not necessarily continue in an alliance setting. By doing so, we do not only
straight through all four phases to restart again. promote the process perspective, that is still rarely
Instead, it is possible to fall back to the last stage, for applied in studies on BMI or transformation, but also
example, when difficulties between the alliance part- considerably enhance BMI literature. Our focus on
ners come up. Heating started into the process and BMI in alliances allows for a new perspective on
completed the concept/identification as well as the opportunities and challenges for BMI in established
foundation/consolidation phase only to find out that companies.
the alliance was not robust enough in terms of culture Furthermore, we found that these BMIA processes
compatibility and the alignment of internal processes take place at two different levels simultaneously.
of both partners to carry out the BM development. Thus, we add to the current understanding of how
Therefore, they went back to the foundation/consol- multiple partners contribute to BMI by introducing
idation phase and looked for a new alliance partner. the need to distinguish two different perspectives: an
Once this partner (Heating) was found, they set the internal, firm-focused BM perspective and an exter-
process in motion again and are now in the develop- nal, alliance-based BM perspective. On the alliance
ment/creation phase. The same is true for Storage, level, the BMI process can be subdivided into four
which currently seems to be stuck in this phase, also individual phases, here called concept, foundation,
due to coordination difficulties among the three alli- development, and operation. On the BM level, iden-
ance partners. In contrast, Parking went right through tification, consolidation, creation, and adaption rep-
the overall process without noteworthy struggles resent their counterparts. As both levels are closely
and took the BM to market. Yet, the shared BM still intertwined, a careful management of both levels is
needs some refinements and both partners decided to crucial.
continue the BM on their own, which is in this case Moreover, each phase shows distinct require-
not that critical as Integrated Parking Solutions is ments and must be treated accordingly. One
located in the United States and they split their target example is the special needs for different learn-
markets. ing modes that underline the interplay between
Interestingly, all alliances mentioned the same the existent internal BM and the newly developing
critical points throughout the phases. First, in the alliance-based BM. While Berends et al. (2016)
concept/identification phase the main challenge divide two different learning modes called cogni-
is to create a viable business case in order to get tive search and experiential learning, some schol-
internal approval for the new idea and a possible ars emphasize the importance of cognitive search
alliance. Second, the foundation/consolidation for BMI (Cortimiglia et al., 2015; Furnari, 2015) as
phase calls for a contract that clearly defines the BM have to be defined first and then put into oper-
future working relationship. Third, in the devel- ation (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Chatterjee,
opment/creation phase the focus lies on ensuring 2013). However, others focus on BMI as resulting
a win–win situation for all partners over the entire primarily from actions in the form of experimen-
alliance lifecycle. Fourth, in the operation/adaption tation (McGrath, 2010), trial-and-error learning
phase the alliance BM presents a role model for the (Sosna et al., 2010; Mezger, 2014), and effectua-
extant BM; however, the companies often struggle tion (Chesbrough, 2010; Sitoh et al., 2014). Our
to (re-)integrate the generated knowledge into their findings show that BMI is a combination of both
internal BMs. learning modes instead of the result of one learning
© 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 33Patrick Spieth, Sven M. Laudien and Svenja Meissner
mode on its own. They are backed up by the work founded to explore future BM opportunities as sug-
of Martins et al. (2015) as well as Berends et al. gested by the domain separation approach. After the
(2016) but offer a new alliance-focused perspective internal permission to form a BMIA, in the second
on this topic. phase the question of choosing an adequate organi-
The first two stages clearly emphasize cognitive zational form needs to be answered. About half of
search for they focus on the decisions if and how our sample BMIA followed the prevalent approach in
to enter new fields as well as how to design the the literature and established the BMIA in an individ-
alliance. Several alternatives are rated according ual organization (such as a joint venture), motivated
to their consequences. Then this emphasis shifts mainly by independence regarding culture, processes,
towards experiential learning, for it aims at devel- and staff (organizational separation). The other half
oping a new alliance BM and allows an established decided on exploiting synergy effects by keeping the
firm to experiment with a new BM outside the firm BMIA in-house as they view the new alliance BM as
boundaries, using the alliance BM as some sort of a potential supplement for their existent BM (domain
test balloon. In the last phase the experiences from separation). Nevertheless, in the third phase, the new
earlier phases transform routinized actions as the alliance BM is executed separately in parallel to the
learnings from the alliance BM are integrated in the extant BM (again organizational or domain sep-
internal BM from each partner. When this process aration). In the end, most of the BMIA considered
starts anew, the partners are enabled to combine reintegration as a viable approach, to ensure market
cognitive search and experiential learning within staying power (temporal separation).
the different phases and thereby to benefit from Our results clearly show a connection of BMI and
their distinct advantages. In this way, our results learning and ambidexterity literature (see e.g. Raisch
indicate that neither cognitive search nor experi- and Birkinshaw, 2008; Andriopoulos and Lewis,
ential learning on its own leads to BMI. Instead, 2009). Yet, there is neither a universal learning mode,
they should either complement each other within nor a one and only approach on how to become ambi-
the same phase of the BMI process or be used alter- dextrous that is true for every BMIA. On the contrary,
natingly throughout the different process steps. each decision has to be made individually, adapted
Therefore, a main challenge is to create a context to the distinct circumstances and needs of each and
that allows companies to successfully alternate every BMIA anew.
between both learning modes or even to combine All in all, we are the first to analyze BMIA in
them. detail. Our findings highlighting distinct challenges
The same is true regarding structural distance of running BMIA as we identify different process
between the extant internal and the evolving alli- phases and clarify the interaction between the alli-
ance BM that show distinct requirements towards ance BM and the company’ internal BM.
the BMI process phases. At this point, the literature
on ambidexterity can offer additional insights, as
5.2. Managerial implications
it describes a firm’s ability to simultaneously exe-
cute rivaling activities (Gibson and Birkinshaw, Our developed process model for BMIA may serve as
2004) and typically refers to pursuing two diverse a reference point for alliance managers on their way
strategies in the same industry (Winterhalter et al., to establish a BMIA, including the potential pitfalls
2016). Our findings support the view that a pursuit that need to be considered in each phase. We intro-
of two strategies in adjacent industries takes place. duce alliances as means to achieve necessary BMI
Currently the most popular point of view is that new with the help of stakeholders and without having to
BM need new organizational units (Chesbrough take a huge amount of risk and money. In doing so,
and Rosenbloom, 2002; Markides, 2006) for in we enable managers to do some pilot testing of new
this way each unit can pursue its own goals, value BMI ideas in parallel to the extant internal BM. As
chain activities, and establish a micro-culture BMI only takes place on the alliance level it is not
without hampering or diluting each other (Lavie going to immediately threaten the internal BM. This
et al., 2010; Markides, 2013). However, BM do not independence allows companies to especially benefit
necessarily differ considerably. Therefore, a com- from the innovated, alliance-based business model
plete organizational separation may not always be for they do not have to deal with inertia.
the best approach – an insight that is strongly sup- Our research has shown that managers should
ported by insights from Markides (2006). consider challenges arising during each phase on
Our data show a constant need for reassessment the internal BM level as well as the external alli-
of the separation decision after each process phase. ance-based BM level and uncover potential pitfalls
In the very beginning an independent project team is that managers tend to overlook. We recommend
34 R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 © 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons LtdBusiness model innovation in strategic alliances
managers to pay particular attention to the identifi- represent more than 500.000 employees as well as
cation of a cooperation partner who disposes of com- annual revenues of nearly €200 billion. This is the
plementary competencies and resources and is likely key data that show the economic relevance of our
to be a good strategic match business model wise research setting. As we are looking for BMIA at a
even when looking a little further into the future. large scale, we also have to admit that the number
Here the focus has to be on a long-term perspective, of possible research settings that allow for gathering
which gives the shared BM room to develop instead rich data is due to the newness and complexity of our
of starting to contradict one of the partner’s internal research topic limited.
BMs in the near future. When this match between Third, as BMIA processes are a brand new topic
the two internal business models is found, managers for incumbents and are currently subject to experi-
should try to secure a constant alignment of the extant mentation and continuous reshaping themselves,
BMs of all partners and the newly developed alliance our study only depicts a very early stage of BMIA
BM over the entire lifecycle of the cooperation. A processes. At this point a longitudinal study could be
carefully negotiated alliance contract can assist man- promising in terms of portraying the temporal devel-
agers whenever conflicts occur as long as it includes opment of BMIA processes and a potential emer-
precise rules for the future of the cooperation. gence of a best-practice approach.
Furthermore, we observed that managers strug- We hope that our findings and especially the newly
gle with problems that could be easily solved by developed BMIA process model will encourage
improved and formalized learning processes and future researchers to take on where we have left off.
knowledge databases, as the firm often already has For instance, it could also be of interest to learn more
the missing piece of information. Organizational about factors that make BMIA attractive or uninter-
learning can help to create the required learning esting for companies – possible factors that deserve
structures that ideally also allow their employees attention in this realm could be company size, market
to continuously switch between or combine the two position, technological complexity, or differences in
learning modes – experiential learning and cognitive the background of the managers being in charge for
search. setting up or running such a type of alliance.
All in all, we urge managers not to rush through
the phases due to time constraints but to carefully pay
attention to each of the phase’s distinct challenges References
and stepping from one phase into the other only after
having completed every single step that is required. Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001) Value creation in E-Business.
In the end, a careful execution may save a lot of time Strategic Management Journal, 22, 6/7, 493–520.
as well as conflict potential. Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M.W. (2009) Exploitation-
exploration tensions and organizational ambidexter-
ity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization
5.3. Limitations and future research Science, 20, 4, 696–717.
Arend, R.J. (2013) The business model: present and
Our paper is naturally not free from limitations. First,
future–beyond a skeumorph. Strategic Organization, 11,
we are well aware that the BM concept that builds the 4, 390–402.
groundwork for our research has not yet reached the Baden-Fuller, C. and Mangematin, V. (2013) Business
state of a theory and that BM research is – despite its models: a challenging agenda. Strategic Organization,
existence for more than a decade – in some ways still 11, 4, 418–427.
in its infancy. Nevertheless, our utilization of the BM Bask, A.H., Tinnilä, M., and Rajahonka, M. (2010)
concept in this study is in line with the proceeding of Matching service strategies, business models and mod-
several other researchers who consider the BM as a ular business processes. Business Process Management
new unit of an analysis that helps to understand how Journal, 16, 1, 153–180.
strategic change is executed on operational levels Berends, H., Smits, A., Reymen, I., and Podoynitsyna,
(Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010). K. (2016) Learning while (re)configuring: business
model innovation processes in established firms.
Second, we acknowledge that our empirical study
Strategic Organization, 14, 3, 181–219. https://doi.
is only centered on one German automotive OEM
org/10.1177/1476127016632758
which may at first sight be considered as drawback Bettis, R.A. and Hitt, M.A. (1995) The new competitive
of our study. Hence, it could be fruitful to analyze landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 7–19.
BMIA with a different industry background or to Bock, A.J., Opsahl, T., George, G., and Gann, D.M. (2012)
look for differences in the design of BMIA that are The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexi-
caused by cultural divergence. However, the auto- bility during business model innovation. Journal of
motive OEM and its BMIA alliances we observe Management Studies, 49, 2, 279–305.
© 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 35Patrick Spieth, Sven M. Laudien and Svenja Meissner Bogers, M., Afuah, A. and Bastian, B. (2010) Users as Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J.E., and Zott, C. (2015) innovators: a review, critique, and future researc direc- Introduction to the SEJ special issue on business mod- tions. Journal of Management, 36(4), 857–875. https:// els: business models within the domain of strategic doi.org/10.1177/0149206309353944. entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Bucherer, E., Eisert, U., and Gassmann, O. (2012) 9, 1, 1–11. Towards systematic business model innovation: lessons Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2005) Paradigms and from product innovation management. Creativity and perspectives in contention. In: Denzin, N.K. and Innovation Management, 21, 2, 183–198. Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Ricart, J.E. (2010) From strat- Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc, egy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range pp. 183–190. Planning, 43, 2–3, 195–215. Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., and Casadesus-Masanell, R., Ricart, J.E. and Tarziján, J. (2015) Schneckenberg, D. (2014) An exploration of business A corporate view of business model innovation. In: Foss, model development in the commercialization of tech- N.J. and Saebi, T. (Eds.) Business Model Innovation. The nology innovations. R&D Management, 44, 3, 306–321. Organizational Dimension. Oxford, United Kingdom: Doganova, L. and Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009) What do Oxford University Press, pp. 64–84. business models do? Research Policy, 38(10), 1559– Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Zhu, F. (2013) Business model 1570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.08.002. innovation and competitive imitation: the case of sponsor- Douma, M.U., Bilderbeek, J., Idenburg, P.J., and Looise, based business models. Strategic Management Journal, J.K. (2000) Strategic alliances. Long Range Planning, 34(4), 464–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2022. 33, 4, 579–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024 Chanal, V. and Caron-Fasan, M.-L. (2010) The difficulties -6301(00)00062-5 involved in developing business models open to innova- Doz, Y.L. and Kosonen, M. (2010) Embedding strategic tion communities: the case of a crowdsourcing platform. agility. Long Range Planning, 43, 2–3, 370–382. M@n@gement, 13(4), 318–340. Draulans, J., deMan, A.-P., and Volberda, H.W. (2003) Chatterjee, S. (2013) Simple rules for designing business Building Alliance Capability: Management Techniques models. California Management Review, 55, 2, 97–124. for Superior Alliance Performance. Long Range Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open Business Models: How to Planning, 36(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Volume xvi. S0024-6301(02)00173-5. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. p. 256. Dunford, R., Palmer, I., and Benveniste, J. (2010) Business Chesbrough, H. (2007) Business model innovation: it's not model replication for early and rapid internationalisa- just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, tion. Long Range Planning, 43(5–6), 655–674. https:// 35, 6, 12–17. doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.06.004. Chesbrough, H. (2010) Business model innovation: oppor- Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case study tunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43, 2–3, research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 354–363. 532–550. Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002) The role of Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007) Theory build- the business model in capturing value from innovation: ing from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy evidence from xerox corporation's technology spin-off of Management Journal, 50, 1, 25–32. companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 3, Enkel, E., Gassmann, O. and Chesbrough, H. (2009) Open 529–555. R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. Chesbrough, H. and Schwartz, K. (2007) Innovating busi- R&D Management, 39, 311–316. ness models with co-development partnerships: compa- Furnari, S. (2015) A cognitive mapping approach to business nies can build stronger business models if they assess models: representing causal structures and mechanisms. their own capabilities and the context for a co-develop- In: Silverman, B.S., Baden Fuller, C., and Mangematin, ment partnership. Research-Technology Management, V. (eds), Business Models and Organizations. Bingley: 50, 55–59. Emerald Publishing. pp. 207–239. Cortimiglia, M.N., Ghezzi, A., and Frank, A.G. (2015) George, G. and Bock, A.J. (2011) The business model Business model innovation and strategy making nexus: in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship evidence from a cross-industry mixed-methods study. research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), R&D Management, 46, 3, 414–432. 83–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00424.x. Dahan, N.M., Doh, J.P., Oetzel, J., and Yaziji, M. (2010) Gerring, J. (2007) Case Study Research: Principles and Corporate-NGO collaboration: co-creating new business Practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. models for developing markets. Long Range Planning, Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004) The antecedents, 43, 2–3, 326–342. consequences, and mediating role of organizational Das, T.K. and Teng, B.-S. (2000) A resource-based theory ambidexterity. The Academy of Management Journal, of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 47, 2, 209–226. 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00037-9. Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., and Hamilton, A.L. (2013) Demil, B. and Lecocq, X. (2010) Business model evo- Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes lution. In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Planning, 43, 2–3, 227–246. Methods, 16, 1, 15–31. 36 R&D Management 51, 1, 2021 © 2020 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
You can also read
